The victim mentality of conspiracy theorists

Conspiracy theorists seem to see conspiracies in even the most innocent things. Then again, politically motivated activists will invent conspiracies if they think this will present them as a victim. This appears to be happening around Bob Carter, one of the darlings of the local climate change deniers/contrarians/pseudosceptics.

Just look at the (unattributed) conspiracy story local climate change pseudosceptic Richard Treadgold is attempting to promote in his blog post Heated climate debate continues.

Bob Carter was a Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University (Townsville) between 1981 and 1999. Subsequently he was an adjunct research professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at the James Cook University from 1998 to 2005 and a visiting research professor in geology and geophysics at the University of Adelaide from 2001 to 2005. And an adjunct research professor again at the James Cook University until the end of last year. According to Brisbane-based journalist Graham Readfearn:

“Professor Paul Dirks, head of school at JCU’s School of Earth and Environmental Sciences where Bob Carter’s affiliation was held, has told me that since 1 January 2013, Bob Carter has had “no official status” at JCU. He said Bob Carter’s previous adjunct status ceased on that date.”

What is an adjunct research professor?

You can find out at the James Cook University’s web page Adjunct Appointments. In this case it’s a bit like an emeritus professor. An unpaid position at the university for a retired academic. They are not open-ended –“Appointments will be normally be made for periods of up to three years and may be renewed.”

So, in summary Carters unpaid adjunct position expired at the end of last year. It was not renewed. And he had long before (1999) retired from his job as a Professor at that university.

Mind you, that has not stopped people like Treadgold and other climate change psuedosceptics referring to Carter as a Professor at James Cook University. You would think these sources would have stopped using that title and affiliation by now. As Readfern says:

“Several of these groups still describe Bob Carter as having an affiliation with James Cook University, which, as I’ve just clarified, ended six months ago. I’m sure they will all be diligently edited to reflect Bob Carter’s actual non-status with James Cook University.

I mean, we wouldn’t want anyone being misled now would we?”

Well, perhaps some of these people have decided to stop misleading and admit Carter is no longer holds affiliated to James Cook University. But why waste the opportunity to present themselves as persecuted and victims?

A “contemptible, poisonous blatant act of bureaucratic bigotry”

Treadgold decides to treat expiration of Carter’s adjunct status as a “dismissal:”

“Professor Bob Carter (an expatriate Kiwi) lost his job the other day at James Cook University (JCU) in Townsville. He had worked there for 31 loyal years, . . . . . Significantly, because it led to his dismissal, Bob made an honourable name for himself and earned a world-wide reputation for remaining faithful to scientific principles while analysing the outrageous predictions from global warming alarmists. He was never afraid to speak out against the alarmists and their dubious claims.

Dismissing him with a blatant act of bureaucratic bigotry will deepen the shame of its perpetrators whenever the history of “man-made” climate change is recalled.”

He goes on to call the expiry, sorry “dismissal,” of the adjunct position a “contemptible action” arising from “poisonous, irrational thinking.”

But despite the normal rapidity with which the climate change pseudosceptic/contrarian/denier internet echo chamber circulates such stories of victimhood this one doesn’t seem to have any legs. It was half-heartedly tweeted by Christopher Monckton, the Galileo Movement and a Sydney journalist Micky Mantell.

As I tried to impress upon those at Climate Conversation Group, maybe the university is just allowing Bob more time off so he can get a paying paper-round and contribute to NIWA’s costs. Carter was quite prepared to contribute an affidavit (or rather, part of the prolix argument) as part of the action against NIWA.

One factor is that adjuncts usually use office space. Most university departments don’t have a lot, so there is a limit to how many adjuncts you can fit, they are usually given that status only if they are still actively contributing to research or they are actively teaching. In my department we have had a number of adjuncts not renewed recently, nobody had any problem with them, we just need to make room for new staff.

Can anybody think of any of the “scientists” of the climate denial movement under the age of 60?

(…awkward silence…)

Ok so….can anybody think of any that will never see 70 again?
Ah.
Hmm. It’s a very narrow demographic and a very small list of names.
On the other hand there’s NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
(shrug)

“Finally, and most unfortunately, there is Emeritus disease, a problem that is found in every area of academic controversy. The typical sufferer is an older male, with the archetypal case being the holder of an emeritus position. Unfortunately, aging tends to go along with both a hardening of intellectual arteries and an unwillingness or inability to keep abreast of recent developments in the field in question, with the effect of dogmatic attachment to views formed long ago. Having taken a view of an issue on the basis of very limited consideration, they remain dogmatically attached to it until the end of their days.
(Looking at the description, I’m obviously a high-risk candidate for going emeritus myself. That’s one reason I try to engage in discussion with people holding a range of views from which I might learn something, most recently economists of the Austrian school).
Unfortunately, Emeritus disease has a bad prognosis. As Max Planck observed long ago…

a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Not sure of his exact age but he’s clearly a giddy young teenager in comparison to his denier peers. Never heard of his name before. No doubt as the other “big” names die off, his will be quoted more and more for a sound-bite or two in the long, dreary years ahead. He has something to look forward to. Good catch, Richard. 😉

This little anecdote reminds my of some scientists I’ve worked with over the years.

THE WHITE LIE CAKE
Have you ever told a white lie?

Alice Grayson was to bake a cake for the Baptist Church Ladies’ Group in Tuscaloosa , but forgot to do it until the last minute.

She remembered it the morning of the bake sale and after rummaging through cabinets, found an angelfood cake mix & quickly made it while drying her hair, dressing, and helping her son pack for scout camp.

When she took the cake from the oven, the center had dropped flat and the cake was horribly disfigured and she exclaimed,

“Oh dear, there is not time to bake another cake!”

So, being inventive, she looked around the house for something to build up the center of the cake.

She found it in the bathroom – a roll of toilet Paper.

She plunked it in and then covered it with icing. Not only did the finished product look beautiful, it looked perfect.

And, before she left the house to drop the cake by the church and head for work Alice woke her daughter and gave her some money and specific
instructions to be at the bake sale the moment it opened at 9:30 and to buy the cake and bring it home.

When the daughter arrived at the sale, she found the attractive, perfect cake had already been sold.

Amanda grabbed her cell phone and called her mom. Alice was horrified-she was beside herself! Everyone would know!

What would they think? She would be ostracized, talked about, ridiculed!

All night, Alice lay awake in bed thinking about people pointing fingers at her and talking about her behind her back.

The next day, Alice promised herself she would try not to think about the cake and would attend the fancy luncheon/bridal shower at the home of a fellow church member and try to have a good time. She did not really want to attend because the hostess was a snob who more than once had looked down her nose at the fact that Alice was a single parent and not from the founding families of Tuscaloosa, but having already RSVP’d, she
couldn’t think of a believable excuse to stay home.

The meal was elegant, the company was definitely upper crust old south, with 20 guests in total, and to Alice ‘s horror, the cake in question was presented for dessert!

Alice felt the blood drain from her body when she saw the cake!

She started out of her chair to tell the hostess all about it, but before she could get to her feet, the Mayor’s wife said, “what a beautiful cake!” 95 percent of the guests totally agreed.

Alice, still stunned, sat back in her chair when she heard the hostess (who was a prominent church member) say,

Ron, with your self-claimed skills you will have no trouble finding that paper for yourself. There are lots of comments on the internet – and lots of attacks (as you expect) from the climate change contrarians/pseudosceptics/deniers (with who you will no doubt agree).

Perhaps, though, you should read the IPPC reports to actually see what climate scientists are saying. These review all the published peer reviewed literature and provide the most authoritative overview.

If you can’t find a paper then that means…you can’t find a paper.
(shrug)
There is a scientific consensus on AGW just as there is a consensus on Evolution, Gravity and the Moon Landings.
If you have a problem with AGW, then take it up with NASA. Let them tell you about the 97%. This isn’t hard to find out.

“We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”

mmm… so they looked at 11,944 papers… 2/3rds the papers expressed no opinion… less than 1/3rd endorsed AGW…

and the headlines/claims include such distorted and falsified statements such as…

97% of climate scientists agreed that AWG was real…

about 97 per cent of 4000 international scientific papers analysed in a University of Queensland-led study were rated as endorsing human-caused global warming. [noting that 11,944 papers were actually analysed…]

Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made

All totally false claims…

I wonder what scientists who call themselves objective minded skeptics would think of that kind of dishonest distortionist reporting?

No, I expect that sort of contrarianism from you Ron. I was commenting on you not being aware of something staring you in the face. So unaware that you expect others to go out and do the searching for you.

The paper does include references to other studies which found similar results, should you be inclined to follow them up. I am not aware of any studies which contradict these findings to any substantial degree, though the public perception of climate scientists’ degree of agreement on the topic is apparently a different matter.

Ah, I see you have indeed located the paper whilst I was typing up my response. And proceeded to talk about it in isolation, with no mention of any of the other work it references, including similar academic reviews and direct surveys of climate scientists.

Now, while I wouldn’t say the literature survey in and of itself constitutes ‘proof’ that 97% of climate scientists endorse AGW, it is certainly telling that, in those papers where a position is taken, 97% go with AGW.

In regards to the total proportion of papers which take no position (35.5% according to self-rating), I don’t think this can be taken as fence-sitting. The field of climate science does, after all, include palaeoclimate. Any study which looks exclusively at what the climate was like at some time before the industrial revolution is, by definition, not going to take a position on AGW.

I have no particular interest in another endless argument over the technicalities of a single paper. I will note that you yourself brought up the 97% figure, and have been provided a good starting point if you want to figure out what the research says on the matter. I’m quite satisfied that one side of the argument enjoys a clear majority of climate scientists, whatever the precise figure may be.

But Chris, the paper wasn’t a literature review… it was presented as a scientific review of scientists views and reviewed thousands of papers and found 2/3rds of the papers didn’t express a view but the results miraculously are presented as ‘irrefutable proof’ that 97 percent of scientists (based on someone else’s research) support the AWG hypotheses…

Chris, with the greatest of respect, this paper is dishonestly represented by both the media and the authors themselves.

For the record, the papers that take no position are 2/3rds, not 1/3rd…

My point isn’t about 97 percent… it’s about one side of a debate bagging the other for being dishonest when the dishonesty permeates both sides.

Dishonest science and dishonest reporting of science only brings science itself into disrepute; don’t you think? This is about credibility… Ken bagged Carter’s and others credibility… I look forward to him bagging dishonest science whatever side of a debate it is on.

Ron, you say “Ken bagged Carter’s and others credibility… I look forward to him bagging dishonest science whatever side of a debate it is on.”

1: Wrong, I didn’t “bag Carter.” This was not an article on Carter’s presentation of science – it was bagging Treadgold for his misrepresentation of the issue – the completion of Carter’s contract. Just look at the purple prose he used, and no facts to support him.

Even Andy had to pull him up on the “dismissal” charge.

2: As for bagging dishonest science – you will note than I do quite a bit of that here – but I always try to establish the facts and explain the problems with the science.

I have lately been doing that with the fluoridation issue, and will continue to do so as it is an ongoing problem.

I have also done it with the climate change issue. There is incredible rubbish being promoted in both areas which needs challenging.

Of course, I also get a lot of rubbish from pseudoscience and contrarian/denier types in comments here. Some of the commenters are real jerks who will swear black is white or start using the most vile language when shown to be wrong.

I think the true picture on the Carter issue lies somewhere between the angles presented by Ken and Richard T.

Bob Carter’s position as Adjunct Professor was an honorary one, and he has been quite clear about this.
however, there is also a picture that Bob Carter’s positions on climate change didn’t fit well with the authorities at JCU and they felt it easier to not renew the position.

Carter spent 31 years teaching and researching at JCU, so you can’t really use excuses like expiry of tenure or lack of desk space as you might with a postdoctoral fellow. He was asked to relinquish his JCU email address which is basically a no cost service to JCU, so clearly JCU wanted to distance themselves from Bob Carter

It doesn’t surprise me that this has happened. However, the only reason I had heard of James Cook University was because of Bob Carter, and now their reputation is firmly attached to this episode

Andy, when I retired I came back to work for a short while on contract to finish some commercial work I was involved in. That contract was not renewed – but no one goes around bleating about that.

When I retired I effectively lost my office space, my email and personal access to my data on the computer network. That is the formal aspect of finishing employment these days. While on contract I had to take my chances with office space and access my data through other’s passwords.

I spent about 40 years doing scientific research, almost all of at with DSIR, MAF and AgResearch. Yet I didn’t expect any special treatment or emeritus status.

I am not surprised this happened to me, it happens to everyone. It would be absolutely pathetic for anyone to go around squawking about my “treatment” the way Treadgold is currently acting.

As I said, victim hood, or martyrdom is a common psychological condition of conspiracy theorists.

I have exactly the same situation in my department in an Australian University, we can’t just keep retired people on as adjunct, this is different to emeritus, it is only for people active in the department. We have someone who must have served for a similar time in exactly the same situation, including losing email address. He has done nothing wrong, nobody has any problem with him, it’s just that he is retired and is no longer in the department. Uni departments just don’t have the resources these days to let retired professors hang around for the sake of it. As stated in the original posts adjuncts are for fixed terms, usually someone who retired will get adjunct status for one term out of courtesy but after that they are out unless they are actively contributing.

So, in academia, people get old and retire and..are let go.
Gosh, whodathunk!?!
Sometimes they get 10 points and a gold bar in the form of being an adjunct or emeritus but, evidently, that to shall pass or just not be given in the first place.
Well….clearly it’s evidence of a conspiracy. 😉
Hmm…
Imagine the froth and fury if Carter dropped dead of a heart attack eighteen months from now? Would that be more grist for the conspiracy mill or would the deniers do the numbers and go “Oh, that’s sad but he had a good innings”?

Ron, as I have said, I am uninterested in endless argument over any one paper. Do some research and see what other figures you can find if you want to put a number on the proportion of climate scientists who endorse AGW.

As to Bob Carter, I have to ask: Has Carter himself made any allegations of bias on the part of JCU? Because if the person who has supposedly been wronged has made no complaints, and barring some kind of evidence of misconduct on the University’s part, I think they get the benefit of the doubt.

Just listened to the tape… I now agree with you Ken. This is prima facie evidence that the guy is an obvious nutter!!! Clearly he’s an obfuscating idiot. He clearly deserves to be vilified and disparaged as you are doing, Ken. You are doing a great service to the cause… maintaining science’s credibility. How dare someone have an opinion that is different to their boss. How dare an academic speak their mind in public. I mean, what is this world coming to? Of course science should be decided by consensus. How dare anyone think differently!

Keep up the good work, Ken. Credibility bias indeed. How dare that someone, having written a book, would want to sell it… what a nutter!

Ken, it seems that you would probably have to have a tie breaker regarding selective-quote-pieces, although, from what I can gather at least FANNZ paraphrased, rather than demonstrating selective-bias.

If ever you need a reference, or a referee, I would only be too willing to brag on your ability to make normal look suspicious. I’m sure it’s a gift. 🙂

Talking of gifts, I saw some of your paintings online… now that is truly a gift. Well done and no doubt it gives you a pleasant counterbalance in your life.

Is wonder, Ron, if you actually have finally got the message from my post. You refer to the “ability to make normal look suspicious.” That is the very thing I have criticised Treadgold and his mates for.

In the 2GB interview, Bob Carter made it fairly clear that one of the reasons that his position was not renewed was because the University was spending a lot of time defending Carter’s various statements in the media and elsewhere. Therefore he was seen as a liability to them.

I guess in a corporate environment, this might be normal behaviour. Since Universities are now basically as extension of the corporate structure that produce “products” in the form of graduates, and critical thinking is no longer a requirement, then I can understand their position.

Andy, I checked on the JCU website… yes, the university does entertain the thought about critical thinking… but there are no links on the hard-science sites… AGW evangelists obviously think that independent critical thinking is old school… I guess redundant skills like that aren’t needed in today’s MacScience young persons world.

Thinking about thinking – ResearchOnline@JCU
“Unless we stop and think about thinking, critical thinking can be elusive.

Thinking about thinking is a form of metacognition. It requires effortful understanding of the thinking process and an ability to exert control over it.”http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/17368/

Ken said, “Is wonder, Ron, if you actually have finally got the message from my post. You refer to the “ability to make normal look suspicious.” That is the very thing I have criticised Treadgold and his mates for.”

Yes, Ken, I know… and it’s something you are quite skilled at also. I think the old-farts saying is something like, ‘the pot calling the kettle black.”

Bit rich, Ron, seeing you are doing this very thing yourself in this discussion..

However, I am well known for admitting mistakes when I make them, even apologising. It’s always the best way.

So you are welcome to point out situation where I have clearly called the kettle black. If I think you are correct I will withdraw and apologise. Of course, the evil may reside in the onlooker in this case.

You know, on listening to that, I hear no expression of moral outrage on Carter’s part, and I noted him correcting the host on some of his statements. Of course, the volume of condemnation cranked right back up again the moment he was off the air.

Ron, while I’m sure you think you’re being satirical, I think your post represents the kind of parody of the scientific community which the other side of the debate seems determined to promote. Carter has not been silenced, and people are quite capable of learning his views or those of various other contrarians. Certainly there are quite a few people out there who’ve put time and effort into publicising those views. The publicity Carter has gained as a result of losing his position has done his publicity no harm – I for one had never heard of the man before.

The consensus, in many regards, is a bit of a red herring. Science does, after all, progress based on evidence. There does, however, seem to be a tendency for contrarians to appeal to the consensus as the reason their evidence gains no traction, rather than buckling down and amassing sufficient evidence to overturn the existing consensus and substitute their own.

Carter also wrote a book called “Climate, the Counter Consensus”, by the way.

Anyway, this 97% consensus thing is a load of BS. It has been debunked many times and the latest SkS paper is seriously flawed. You can find out yourself since I need to do some work as I am self-employed

I am of course referring to the brilliant paper ‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature’” by the well-known Nobel Prize Winner and consultant to the IPPC, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, in that highly regard peer reviewed science journal “The Official blog of Australia’s (AEC registered) NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party (NCTCS).”

Bloody hell, the paper is so brilliant it even has 55 references in it – can’t ask for more than that!

It’s a critical assessment of Cook’s paper and the data Cook used which shows you guys are just complete pussys.

So much for Ron’s pathetic conclusion that “less than 1/3 of the papers support AGW” our hero finds only 0.3% do (he subtitles “0.3% CONSENSUS, NOT 97.1%”).

Just shows what you can do with a classical education and a self-declared ability to manipulate differential equations.

No, Andy, bit pointless isn’t it? I can form my own assessment of the relative preponderance of active “sceptics” amongst the climate science community just from my reading. Don’t need all this playing around with figures. Have not read either of these papers and don’t intend to.

Is that really necessary, Andy? Speaking from personal experience, I have to say that my default position is that any claim made by Monckton requires verification from independent sources. So if you can find somebody else who’s come up with the 0.3% figure, maybe we’ll talk.

0.3% does stretch credibility a bit, but others have claimed figures in the 30% range. Given that some of the papers in the 97% part are written by people that SkS proclaim to be “deniers”, you have to wonder

Just as a point of interest, Ron, would you care to back up that “this is how modern day science is done” comment with examples from other fields which you feel illustrate similar behaviour? You’ve expressed this belief in regards to fluoridation and climate change. Care to add anything else to your list?

Anyway, this 97% consensus thing is a load of BS. It has been debunked many times and the latest SkS paper is seriously flawed. You can find out yourself since I need to do some work as I am self-employed.
(Andy waves his hands furiously and beats a hasty exit)

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So the choice is to go with NASA and what they say on their website about the 97%…or…to go with some guy assuring us that it’s BS.
Hmmm.
Whom to believe? Yep, it’s a tough one.
Creationists argue this way too.

Come off it, Andy. Your mates switch from one view to another. Richard Cummings, poor soul, for example claims to have proved our fundamental understanding of greenhouse gases is dead wrong. CO2 doesn’t increase heat retention because there has been no temperature increase in the last 17 years despite CO2 increasing.

And of course anyone who accepts the fundamental understanding of these gases is childishly ridiculed. You do it yourself.

I see the underemployed are out in force again today. Where do you guys get your income? How do you finance such a lifestyle?

Andy – your reaction to both Obama and Mann shows how unreasonable you are. They are both people worthy of respect – and they do get it from those who understand the issue (well, actually Mann more than Obama – who is after all a politician).

As for Mad Monckton – well you can see how many people just treat him as a joke – for good reason. I mean – to claim that only 0.35% of climate scientists accept the overview of the IPCC on climate change and its causes – bloody pathetic. And that is just a typical example.

Now that is a case where ridicule is justified.

As for carter – never read any of his books so can’t comment. But look at how he was the chief witness for the local climate denial/contrarian/pseudosceptic group attempt to reverse NIWA’s finding in court – doesn’t exactly recommend him as sensible, does it?

By the way, how is the repayment of NIWA’s expenses going? You guys seem to go very quiet when the issue comes up.

When I see Wall Street relocating or building fortresses to prevent inundation of their share-pits then I’ll start taking things seriously.

When I see large corporates such as the ASB and (in planning stage) Fonterra move their corporate headquarters into precincts that are destined to be under several metres of water as the Antarctic ice shelve melt I scratch my head and ask, why would they do that if they were concerned about the claimed catastrophic effects of global warming?

When I read, and have been reading for several years, that the Arctic Ice is going to be melted by 2015, I wonder what more I can do… isn’t replanting/restoring 20,000 native plants enough for one person to do?

So I think I’ll just wait a couple of years and see if the Arctic Ice is still there… now don’t get me wrong… I’m no rocket scientist on things like this, but if I were a betting man I know where I’d be placing my bets.

If the ice has melted, as all the kings scientists and all the kings men are predicting, then I’ll become a believer… if not, then I guess I’ll just enjoy the holidays at the rent-a-bach.

You know, Andy, it is possible to have a middle-ground whereby you disagree with somebody’s views while still according them a modicum of respect.

On Monckton, I have to say that he comes across as rather on the crazy side independent of what he has to say on climate. He has after all stated that, among other things, he believes the UN is secretly (or perhaps openly) plotting to herd us all into concentration camps and sterilise us with vaccines.

Personally, it would take some pretty damn awful behaviour for me to compare anybody to Monckton. Bob Carter doesn’t come remotely close.

Andy, as well as frothing you are flailing around. Mann certainly does have respect from the scientific community. He continues to publish and his papers get accepted. His critics don’t have that respect – in fact Wegman has reviewed quite a bit of condemnation fir his plagiarism and that if his students..

Meanwhile you and your mates continue to bad mouth Mann and circulate stupid myths about his work.

Having attended one of Monckton’s talks, it sounded pretty darn literal to me. There was also talk of how evil Bill Gates is. What with his plan to reduce the world’s population by killing them off with vaccines and all.

By the way, Bill Gates is evil – Windows 8 is his secret plan to destroy humanity by getting us addicted to the Start Menu and then removing it from us
(even if he doesn’t work there full time, he still has influence on the company)

While it is possible that Monckton subscribes to the conspiracy theories about chemtrails or HAARP, he did not include them in the content of his talk. I suppose we should give him the benefit of the doubt, barring some evidence one way or another.

Ron, I am sure you are aware that, when people say they endorse AGW, they mean they endorse the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming as the theory which best fits our observations of the world.

It doesn’t though. In fact, Hans von Storch recently stated that if we have another 5 years of no warming, we will have to completely revisit the models as no modelled scenarios have 22 years without any measurable warming in the atmospheric temps.

But wait, did he really say that?… well, in January 1987 edition of The American Spectator, (Vol. 020 Issue 001 (January 1 1987)) he wrote a letter “AIDS: A British View,” regarding responses of governments and public agencies to the threat to mankind from the rapid spread of AIDS and its related diseases…

One aspect of what he said was, “there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life.”

In 1987, I suspect that was the only way to stop the spread of AIDS… many actually advocated quarantine, and indeed it was practiced in certain cases.

Today, with ?40 million infected with HIV it would obviously be impossible to do…

Back in the 80’s many practices were scandalous compared to today. Hep C in donated blood is a classic example.

Chris said, “Ron, I am sure you are aware that, when people say they endorse AGW, they mean they endorse the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming as the theory which best fits our observations of the world. ”

Ah, so they don’t really know… they just going with a ‘best fit.’

Some people, like myself, look at these doomsday claims and apply some degree of reality check and ask the question, Has the sea level really risen in Tuvalu and not neighbouring islands to cause inundation? Or have the atols sunk?

If Wall Street is going to be inundated with rising sea levels, where are the plans to move to higher ground???

“Most sceptics also agree that co2 causes some warming, it is the degree and whether it is dangerous.”

Seems to be the current position of most climate scientists is that CO2 is one pf the factors causing warming and that human activity (fossil fuel burning) is very likely to be the cause.

As I said, you just come in at the lower end of this effect compared with the current understanding if climate scientists. Simply a matter of degree. In contrast to your mate Cummings who claims to have proved our understanding if the fundamental properties of greenhouse gases wrt to IR us wring.

But if Cummings wants to prove that the fundamental properties of greenhouse gases have changed its simple enough to measure the IR absorption spectrum. If they no longer absorb IR then he has proved science wrong. All from tapping away on a keyboard, copying and pasting, in his basement.

Ron, I’m not entirely sure what you hope to accomplish by digging up further silly things Monckton has said. I did track down the original article, which somebody has helpfully put up, and if you would care to defend Monckton on this one, you should perhaps do so after reading the entire thing.http://www.ethiopianreview.com/articles/85529

Further, why exactly are you trying to play the Holier Than Thou card? I don’t see how the question of who has done more environmental work is relevant to who is correct about science. I certainly don’t recall trying to lord any environmental credentials over you, nor to infer that not believing in global warming somehow makes you an immoral or anti-environmental person.

(for the record, the answer is “I have contributed a decent amount of environmental volunteer work, though probably not as much as you, considering I suspect you have a fair number of years on me. I have no burning desire to keep count of the number of trees I have planted, especially not as something to lord over people on the internet.”)

As to your derision of “best fit,” Ron, you may wish to retract that one. Even the best scientific theory, be it relativity, evolution, what have you, is in truth a coherent body of work which best approximates reality as we understand it. Any of these is subject to being modified, overturned or replaced if we come up with something which better explains our observations, or if those observations contradict the predictions of the theory.

Actually, Chris, it’s not a bad read and in the context of 1987 was not too radical. He succinctly discusses the totalitarian/libertarian ethical issues… and in a sense reached the same position that Ken and other self-proclaimed skeptics take with fluoridation.

You’ll note his conditional, ‘if a vast majority agreed…’ or words to that effect. I guess he would have had Ken’s backing for a binding referendum. If they had had those back in the day, then for sure, many communities would have done exactly what he proposed.

Many public health officials quarantined otherwise healthy people simply because they thought they had a deadly flu virus as recently as 2009… remember? We had urgent epidemic legislation enabling the prime minister to declare such sinister public health practices.

AIDS is an excellent example of how ‘vast majority’ of scientists scenarios got things wrong… and that wasn’t too long ago. remember the ‘if, not when’ influenza pandemic in 2009/2010 that killed far fewer people than a normal flu virus?

A theory so vague we cannot define it, yet based on this vague theory we can generate millions of dollars of research grants and claim that 97% of scientists vaguely agree with this vague theory. We can also vilify anyone who disagrees with our vague theory, even if they agree with it vaguely

Andy: Maybe Ken could explain what the AGW theory actually is, in quantitative terms, and what would disprove it.

Ken: AGW theory is not a term I use, Andy. Too vague.

Oddly enough, NASA takes the time to explain this one.
(Hint. They have a website)

A theory so vague we cannot define it…

NASA doesn’t seem to think it’s ‘vague”. On their website, they spend quite some time going into the details and explaining their work over the many decades. That work is continuous.

…we can generate millions of dollars of research grants…

This is conspiracy thinking. The work that NASA and other scientific communities does, goes back decades. It’s not controlled by any one board doleing out grant money or any one nation or any one political party. You don’t get right-wing national governments coming to power, only to see the scientists change their tune on AGW to keep the money flowing. It doesn’t work like that. The peer-reviewed research has been consistantly growing in detail and depth and all in one general direction no matter how unpleasant the news might be or who’s in political power.

What NASA is saying now is the same thing they said under LBJ and Reagan and Bush Senior and Bush Jnr. Only now they have more detailed records and better computers and satellites.

Okay Ron, whenever somebody makes the comparison between “sceptical” attitudes towards global warming and evolution, I want you to look back at that sentence and think about whether they might have a point.

“Evolution is not a fact. It’s only a theory.” Words creationists live by.

Cedric, so you are a disciple of “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.” And of cause, we all know the outcome of that moral blackmail…

Why on earth does someone have to take a position on anything? Don’t we live in a democracy? Jeez, wayne, my father spent the best part of five years of his life in the Egyptian deserts fighting for our freedom of speech… are you saying that was in vane?

Surely you are not saying we should accept authorities’ opinions just because they are in authority? If science was like that, which it shouldn’t be, then consensus would mean nothing ever changed. Real science is never a democracy.

What’s AGW got to do with evolution/creation? I thought they were different topics. Are you suggesting there are two teams that back either this group of contentious issues or that group of contentious issues. Is that how high-science works…? Sounds more like politics to me.

Well, I’m embarrassed. Good catch, Chris. That will teach me to skim read.

“Evolution is not a fact. It’s only a theory.” Words creationists live by.

Indeed they do.

What’s AGW got to do with evolution/creation? I thought they were different topics.

Only the labels are different. The way people argue about them is the same.
Your own words are a sweet, sweet, el primo example of this.

Oh, and it’s now a theory… not fact.

In this example, there’s no need for me to even switch the labels. It’s just perfect the way it is. We can use it for any science denial topic. An anti-vaxer could use it or a climate denier could use it or a creationist could use it.
And they do…

From my understanding of science, when a theory is proven, it becomes an established as fact… is the claim that the Arctic circle will fully melt within 2 years due to AGW a theory or a fact? Your call…

Cedric, so you are a disciple of “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.” And of cause, we all know the outcome of that moral blackmail…

If you feel that I’m morally blackmailing you then feel free to quote me…but that’s not what I’m doing.
Either represent my postion accurately or admit you are just engaging in building a strawman.

Why on earth does someone have to take a position on anything?

You don’t. Only if you have a position on something you should be willing to justify that position with evidence and be prepared to change your position to account for a better argument or evidence that may come along.

Don’t we live in a democracy?

Science is the study of reality. Reality is not decided by opinion poll.
If you are diagnosed with cancer, it doesn’t care if you vote for it.

Surely you are not saying we should accept authorities’ opinions just because they are in authority?

No, of course not. I talk about NASA all the time. It’s not because they are just “an authority”. It’s because they do the work. They are pioneers in climate research and they have the tools and the technical know-how to study such a complicated field. It’s hard to come up with a better source of scientific information on climate change. I can look at their website and read about their conclusions in plain English. I can double check anything they say by going to any other scientific community from and of the physical sciences and read the same thing. I only need primary, scientific sources of information. I’d don’t get stuff second-hand from blogs.
Ken’s blog is great, for example. I like being here. But I’d never just take Ken’s word on anything important like climate change and he would not expect me to.
He might come up with a pithier expression or a more illustrative way to describe things but it’s only in support of the mainstream science. He’s not some lone, aging crack waving his fist in the air at the grand global scientific Marxist conspiracy or some such silliness.

If science was like that, which it shouldn’t be, then consensus would mean nothing ever changed.

The consensus has changed. It’s changeable. That’s a good thing. That’s how people win Nobel Prizes. Scientists are praised and rewarded for changing the consensus. Only you have to do the work. And there’s a LOT of work.
Griping on a blog in an echo chamber nursing home lauching spurious court challenges and then losing does not come to the same thing.
Once upon a time, climate change was not accepted. Then consensus changed.
That happened the boring, old fashioned way. It had nothing to do with Al Gore. It had a lot to do with NASA and the U.S. Defense Department and other scientific bodies.

Real science is never a democracy.

Sure. It’s a meritocracy. Based on the work.
That’s why there’s a global scientific consensus on climate change that encompasses every single scientific community on the planet and why there an overwhelming body of peer-reviewed literature from all the physical sciences using multiple, independent lines of evidence going back many decades.
A scientific consensus is a result.
You have to look good and hard as to how that result came about.

Cedric rambles… “Science is the study of reality. Reality is not decided by opinion poll.”

Hang on a minute… haven’t we been hearing about these 97% of scientists, and ‘the science is settled’ and there is no debate…????

In this case, evangelists of climate change are hanging on the democratic vote of ‘97% of scientists.’

You claim “Science is the study of reality.” Now, let’s think… “The Arctic sea ice will be melted by 2015.” Reality? Absolutely not. Maybe? We’ll know in two years, but I, an ignorant person who apparently knows nothing about the scientific method, very much doubt it. Is it speculation? Definitely… theory? yes… reality… pass the bucket.

According to climate change evangelists, climate change is change attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

According to ordinary people, such as myself, climate change is change attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere as well as natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

But hang on a minute, it seems that scientists can’t make up their mind…;

“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

No, Ron. You have been banging on about the 97%, having brought up the topic in the first place, and the rest of us have largely ignored your efforts to discredit the idea of a consensus or to convince us that it’s not an accurate figure. Indeed, Ken has been quite clear that he does not approve of the word “settled” being used in regards to science.

I said a while back that I was uninterested in endlessly arguing over a single paper, and that you could look into the matter for yourself and work out an appropriate figure for the degree of consensus if it was important to you. I’m more concerned with the evidence both sides have put forward in support of their ideas.

So, as seems to be a habit with you, you have been arguing (though I’m not quite sure with whom, as you seem to have gotten no bites so far as I can see) an irrelevant point and trying to bootstrap it into your true goal – to convince us that the consensus viewpoint is wrong.

None of us would dispute that science is not decided by consensus, but it’s generally a pretty good indicator of which side has, to date, presented the more convincing arguments.

Nobody here would suggest that science is decided by consensus, nor that we should blindly defer to authority, but this does not mean that the consensus on a particular topic is wrong. Indeed, the consensus is generally a good indicator of which side has, to date, presented the more convincing arguments. As a practical matter, the onus is on the people seeking to overturn the consensus to provide evidence in support of their own favoured theory, though scientists will carry on working regardless, either building support for a theory or identifying issues with it.

To the sceptic’s eye, unfortunately, the campaign against climate science tends to look more like an exercise in PR than any kind of scientific endeavour. Convincing, perhaps, to the casual observer such as yourself, rather less so to anybody who critically evaluates the evidence presented by both sides.

And yes, considering that rather large gaffe regarding scientific theories, I’m afraid I have to rate you as a casual observer on this, and probably any other topic on which you might venture an opinion in future.

With that in mind, a suitable primer on the topic for the layperson might be Poles Apart, written from a neutral perspective by Gareth Morgan and John McCrystal.

Have a look through, check some of their references, and then get back to us if you have questions.

Blah. I see I have a duplicate sentence included above. Probably an indication that it’s time to call it a night.

A final point, however: The prediction that we might see an ice-free arctic by 2015 would properly be referred to as a hypothesis. In and of itself, whether or not this prediction proves accurate is not going to prove or disprove global warming, though it will certainly lead to refinement of whatever set of models was used to suggest that possibility.

While I don’t recall that I’ve seen the source of that particular hypothesis, I would hazard a guess that it’s a lower bound figure, rather than an upper bound for when we might expect the arctic to be ice-free. You might want to check out what, if any, upper bound figure climate scientists favour before declaring when global warming will be disproven once and for all. Particularly considering the amount of short-term variability in play.

Ron, you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “theory” as it’s used by scientists.
Nor do you seem to understand the significance of a scientific consensus.

There’s a scientific consensus on gravity.
And the moon landings.
And Evolution.
And the safety of vaccines etc.
Climate change is in the same catagory.

It’s NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
That’s easily verifiable.
Scientific communities have their own websites and more than a few have issued their position on climate change in plain English.
That’s just the way it is.

Now you can ignore what NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is trying to tell you but…you have to have a really, really good reason to do so. One that doesn’t make you sound like a complete nutter.

How can scientists expect ordinary citizens to take their “scary theory” seriously when they themselves use two different definitions to describe the same thing?

“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

Ken, I’m a disciple of the ‘work smarter, not harder’ school of thought. I can multi-task… So far this morning I’ve discussed/done the following with/for clients:

fixing a crack in a concrete driveway that Council says needs fixing… outcome of that is Council have said they can fill the crack with silicone. Personally I’d advised filling it with a grout of some kind that would soak into and seal the crack, but the Council engineer said silicon will do;

building a block of residential dwellings in an industrial zone using shipping containers… outcome I’m meeting with Council’s town planners next week;

approved final survey plans for a 3-lot subdivision so the surveyor can submit s223 application for approval;

assessed final new planted area for s224c purposes.

Have also caught up with the news, made/had breakfast, including home made cappuccino…

So, Cedric, Ken, Chris, do you agree with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of climate change where the term “climate change” means a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate change observed over comparable time periods?

Andy, you know as well as I do that when you are not commenting here, you are commenting elsewhere. You see it as your ideological duty.

Actually, we should be putting to you the same question we have put to Ron – why don’t you establish your own blog? I have noticed in the past that some frequent commenters here have become very capable bloggers, thereby satisfying their needs. Downside, it reduces activity on my blog (yes even you and Ron contribute to raising the value of my blog by your influence on the statistics), but if does actually improve the atmosphere.

Ken, I wish! I’m not a fan of padding invoices. Most of my work is on fixed fee terms… on that basis there are no surprises… I despise rorting… saw enough of that in my university lecturing days.

So, science is so real that there is now a term, “current science…” Why? Does it keep changing its mind?

I note you side step the question, do you agree with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of climate change where the term “climate change” means a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate change observed over comparable time periods?

But, a relevant point for Ron and Andy. When I was working, and it was for a crown research institute, I never had time for this sort of interaction on blogs or forums. There was always far too much work and too little time. And it is very noticeable that working scientists very rarely comment on blogs here – for the same reason. They are always so busy.

But the self employed – that’s another sorry. Either their heart is not in their formal employment or they are just not getting the contracts. But they certainly seem to have the time.

Ken, I note you side step the question, do you agree with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of climate change where the term “climate change” means a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate change observed over comparable time periods?

Andy, you can be pretty sure any triviality Ron is promoting is to pursue an anti-science agenda. Look at the way he squirmed because he didn’t have the courage to criticise FANNZ for misrepresenting publications in their citing..

But I can’t remember replying to you on this issue – it doesn’t interest me. It’s a non-issue, surely.

Do you agree with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of climate change where the term “climate change” means a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate change observed over comparable time periods?

Yes or No?

You see, I doubt anyone outside of a those with vested interests would agree with such an unscientific definition, and yet the UNFCCC is THE authority on this.

If the definition is so flawed, what about the rest of their work?

I would like to know if 97 percent of scientists agreed with this definition… I doubt whether many would… but it’s been their definition for 2 decades or so.

Ron, I am not interested in your questions. You lost any credibility you might have had on such matters when you refused to answer a simple question on the way the anti-fluoridation activists are dishonestly using citations to misrepresent the science.

I repeat, you don’t have the credibility for me to enter into any serious discussion with you.

LOL… Ken, you have such a fettish with me giving you an answer on such a trivial issue as misrepresenting an abstract in a paper that didn’t show any statistical benefits from drinking fluoridated water.

So much so that you refuse to answer the legitimate and important question:

Do you agree with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of climate change where the term “climate change” means a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate change observed over comparable time periods?

It’s not my credibility at stake… if it were, do you think I’d bother entertaining myself with such meaningless blog discussions? I mean, do you think either of us are going to change the speed of the Earth’s rotation?

I acknowledge that it would be embarrassing for you to answer the question about the UNFCCC.

A “No” answer would obviously get you off-side with your ‘scary prophecy’ mates by acknowledging that the UNFCCC’s definition was unscientific and fatally flawed, while a “Yes” answer would be like committing scientific blasphemy in that whilst you would be defending your cult’s religious leader, you would be prostituting your personal scientific values. So I understand if you are too ashamed to answer.

Now, this is very common in such documents, which will specifically define, for clarity, key terms as they are being used in the document. Such definitions hold only when reading that particular document, and do not always match the general, commonly used definitions one might find in a dictionary or amongst the scientific community.

This is very common in, for instance, legislation, where precision of meaning is very important, and we need to be sure readers or users are not applying their own definitions, at odds with the writers’ intended meaning. Note, for example, that the UNFCC’s definition of ‘reservoir’ is also specific to the document and at odds with what we would find in a dictionary.

So. Please do not expect anybody to agree with this particular definition of climate change. Whilst I think I can see why climate change was defined in this way for the purposes of this specific document, that definition is not meant to apply, and should not be applied, outside it.

You may have more luck demanding people agree to the IPCC’s definition, which seems closer to what scientists would say. They are well aware of the definition used for the purposes of the UNFCC, and note the differences between the two.http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm

Chris, I’m totally aware of the different settings… and hence the posting of the contradictions… it’s deliberate, otherwise it would have been acknowledged as a mistake and changed two decades ago.

Climate change (FCCC usage)
A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

Climate change (IPCC usage)
Climate change as referred to in the observational record of climate occurs because of internal changes within the climate system or in the interaction between its components, or because of changes in external forcing either for natural reasons or because of human activities. It is generally not possible clearly to make attribution between these causes. Projections of future climate change reported by IPCC generally consider only the influence on climate of anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases and other human-related factors.

Note that the scientific community (IPCC) had to distance itself from the political community (UNFCCC). But did it?

So you are saying it’s OK for the political wing to redefine the term to suits it’s purpose… Joe Bloggs in the street knows that climate changes all he time… even before human activity… so the politicians are hoodwinked into using/adopting an ill-defined term. Why?

Maybe the scientist advisers set it up that way deliberately…

Why didn’t they just refer to Anthropogenic CC… aka AGW. That would have been just as technical, meaningful and honest.

By obfuscating the normal use of the term and using different definitions it means when a scientist and a politician are speaking, they are speaking different languages… they are talking past each other.

A scientist says, for example, that the sea level rose 30cm last century, the politician, operating under the convention, interprets that, “F%$K, Human activity cause a 30cm rise in sea levels…!

The scientist never said any such thing.

Therefore, having the double-speak means the scientist sleeps well at night knowing she has spoke the truth, but sleeps with a smile on her face knowing the politician interpreted her message incorrectly.

How honest is that?

If the whole point of the UNFCCC is to give political traction to the IPCC one can understand it. Which came first… The chicken or the egg.

The IPCC definition is clearly correct. The term the UNFCCC should be using is ACC or AGW.

Chris, you say, “You may have more luck demanding people agree to the IPCC’s definition, which seems closer to what scientists would say. They are well aware of the definition used for the purposes of the UNFCC, and note the differences between the two.http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm

What they are actually doing is stating that the UNFCCC definition is scientifically false and they are ignoring the UNFCCC definition for the sake of their credibility

If you expected us to consider that argument, you should have been up-front about it. None of this “yes or no!” nonsense. You should have explained how it is possible for the two bodies to produce different definitions, and why you feel that is dishonest.

I should not be able, in a civilised discussion, to complain that you are leaving out key details from your carefully selected quotation. I should not have to waste my time explaining to you, in clear and simple terms, things you are now trying to tell me you already knew.

I am certainly not going to waste further time trying to match you paragraph for paragraph. You do, for whatever reason, seem to have far more time available to you than I do. I will simply note that I see no improvement in the quality of your arguments which would warrant further attention.

In other words, Chris, you do not have a rational scientific explanation.

I understand it must be difficult for you to swallow, but how can ordinary citizens, like me, be expected to believe this or that argument when what we hear spoken by our politicians and scientists are at cross purposes?

I was up front… I pointed out the differences in definitions… this isn’t a PhD dissertation on the morality of scientific methodology, but it sure would make a good research topic.

Andy, this response to your response to my response is being done while I wait for the jug to boil so I can have a cuppa. No char lady when one works from home, I’m afraid. It has taken the time that it has taken the jug to raise the temperature of the water 3.9 degrees Celsius. So I have a few more minutes to have a dump and whatever…

Still marvel though at how little time you guys actually wok, and how little intellectual effort you devote to it. We just didn’t have that luxury when I was working for a CRI. Mind you our research was intellectually absorbing and demanding.

And therein lies the problem, Ron. You are apparently quite capable of rattling off whatever glib nonsense you feel like, in a very short amount of time, whereas I will actually go away, check facts, and get some context for both your claims and what the real situation is. It’s not the typing, it’s the preparation which goes into the typing. This may well explain why you appear to have so much more time that I do.

A brief glance at everybody’s word count ought to show that you produce a hell of a lot more typing than I do, for which there are two possible explanations:

1) You have more spare time than I do.
2) I put more thought and effort into my posts.

So I take it you avoiding the question and agree that what the IPCC are actually doing is stating that the UNFCCC definition is scientifically false and they are ignoring the UNFCCC definition for the sake of their credibility.